Damage rule

[bestialwarlust]

So I noticed this


Damage
If a single attack roll is used, a hit it will usually cause 1-6 hit points of damage, adjusted for strength, magical weaponry, and other factors. Spears set to receive a charge instead cause 2-12 hit points damage, and some large monsters will cause more than the usual damage, or have more than one attack roll (see Explanation of Monsters). If multiple attack rolls are used, each hit causes exactly 1-6 hit points of damage -- all other adjustments being represented by the multiple attack rolls.

For example; An ogre has 4+1 hit dice and is noted as causing 3-8 hit points damage on a hit. Against mercenary fighters with 1+1 hit die an ogre throws 4 attack rolls as a 1 hit die monster, with each successful hit causing 1-6 hit points damage. Against a 3 hit dice fighter, however, an ogre throws a single attack roll as a 4 hit dice monster, with a successful hit causing 3-8 hit points damage.

And of course the earlier one for fighters. Curious as to why the change? and this would apply to giant creatures that do 2d6 and 3d6?

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 17, 2013 10:54:32 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Curious as to why the change?

The additional detail around the multiple attacks rule was motivated by the number of questions I received along the lines of "How do multiple attacks work when..?".

The original material is famously brief in this area, but the DD rule is an interpretation of M&T (p5) which explains that against normals monsters are allowed one attack roll as a normal man per HD. Normal men attack as 1 HD monsters on the attack matrix and deal 1-6 points of damage. So too, therefore, do the multiple attacks of large monsters (and also, by implication, high level fighters using the same multiple attack mechanic). The "any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks" clause is glossed over among all the multiple attacks.

What it means is that an Ogre, for example, is about 1.5 times as dangerous versus normals as it is against non-normals rather than 4 times as dangerous. With a single attack as a 4 HD monster dealing 3-8 hit points, an Ogre deals an average of 2.75 hp damage per round. With four attacks per round as a 1 HD monster dealing 1-6 hit points, an Ogre deals an average of 4.2 hp damage per round. 4.2/2.75 = 1.53.


The more practical upshot of this rule, however, is that every two normal attacks (attacks as a 1 HD monsters dealing 1-6 hp) will, on average, kill one normal 1 HD creature. The referee can therefore "hand wave" a lot of cumbersome dice rolling (if desired) in order to keep the game moving briskly along. If four hill giants are attacking a village, for example, four 8 HD giants would have 8 attacks each versus normals for a total of 32 attacks. It's a very practical short cut for the referee to be able to sum up all those rolls in 2 seconds as "16 villagers killed", rather than spend minutes rolling 32d20, calculating hits, damage, and kills, while the players are sitting there waiting.

Aug 17, 2013 10:54:32 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

and this would apply to giant creatures that do 2d6 and 3d6?

Yes, this rule applies to giants and to all fighting monsters with multiple HD attacking anyone with fewer than 3 HD.

A cloud giant, for example, has 12+2 HD. Against enemies with 3 or more HD it makes a single attack roll each round as a 12+ HD monster, which deals 3-18 damage. Against enemies with fewer than 3 HD it instead makes 12 attack rolls as a 1 HD monster, each of which deals 1-6 damage.

The ref could (if desired) approximate these 12 attacks to 6 kills against villagers, goblins, or other basically normal types.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 17, 2013 20:58:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

A cloud giant, for example, has 12+2 HD. Against enemies with 3 or more HD it makes a single attack roll each round as a 12+ HD monster, which deals 3-18 damage. Against enemies with fewer than 3 HD it instead makes 12 attack rolls as a 1 HD monster, each of which deals 1-6 damage.

(Just for the sake of completeness) this makes a cloud giant's multiple attack mode about 1.33 times as dangerous as its single attack mode. With a single attack as a 12 HD monster dealing 3-18 hit points, a cloud giant deals an average of 9.45 hp per round (because it hits so reliably). With twelve attacks per round as a 1 HD monster dealing 1-6 hit points, a cloud giant deals an average of 12.6 hp per round. 12.6/9.45 = 1.33.


Note, however, that the "average" damage per round I calculated assume that all ACs (2 to 9) occur equally frequently, whereas in an actual scenario this may not be so. Genuine villagers and the like will probably be AC 9 and will suffer more so for it



The general message is that while multiple attacks per round should certainly be respected, they're probably not quite so "off the charts" as they may at first seem to be.

[bestialwarlust]

Thanks for the clarification. I like the kills 1 per two attacks, normally in situation that has a high attack number monsters against a large group of say villagers I usually would just role like a 2d4 or 2d6 and say that's how many died instead of making the 32 attack rolls as in your example above. But with averaging it out like you did it speeds it up a bit more.

[cooper]

It was Gygax attempt to bring the CHAINMAIL mechanic to d20. To be honest, I don't know why someone wouldn't just roll 4d6 and x to kill for an ogre rather than roll a d20 four times and determine the to hit #. Normal men are easy to adjudicate in CHAINMAIL.

Similarly if someone really likes weapon vs. armor from Greyhawk, just using the man to man table is quicker.

I would much rather switch over to CHAINMAIL to run a bunch of giants in a fight with a town millitia rather than hand wave--but that's just me of course.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 18, 2013 8:44:33 GMT -6 cooper said:

I would much rather switch over to CHAINMAIL to run a bunch of giants in a fight with a town millitia rather than hand wave--but that's just me of course.

You could certainly do that and DD even recommends Chainmail (among other titles) for resolving mass battles.

I guess I was thinking more of "adventure" scale scenarios where, say, the PCs are preoccupied with something else in the town while the giants are causing mayhem nearby. The damage caused by the giant's is important enough to make note of, but not exactly central to what the PCs are doing.

As for the ogre example, it's easy to imagine a group of 1st and/or 2nd level PCs encountering an ogre in a dungeon complex, and thus being subject to its multiple attacks. Or, on the other hand, a group of higher level PCs might encounter, say, trolls accompanied by orcs, in which case the fighters would employ their single attack mode against the trolls and their multiple attack mode against the orcs, all in the same combat.

It might also be reasonably common for PCs to be accompanied by hired mercenary fighters, and these would be subject to the multiple attacks rule, even if the PCs themselves are not.


Regardless of scenario, the multiple attacks rule more-or-less represents the intersection between the Chainmail and Alternative combat systems, and is certainly an interesting area of the rules. Well worth exploring

[waysoftheearth]

It has been noted that DD applies M&T's multiple monster attacks rule to high level fighters too, but the FAQ shows that a hero attacks 4 times as a 4th level fighter, not four times as a 1 HD normal.

Yes, that is true.

It's a tricky one for DD because while the FAQ goes about clarifying OD&D's multiple attacks mechanic it appears to contradict M&T. That volume says multiple attacks are as normals, but the FAQ says they are as heroes. Then again, M&T talks only about monsters, while the FAQ talks only about fighters.

So, for DD the decision was whether to apply either; the M&T rule despite the FAQ, or the FAQ rule despite M&T, or the M&T rule to monsters and the FAQ rule to fighters.

I decided that the M&T ruling was the best fit for DD because the M&T mechanic is most easily "compatible" with Chainmail (hardly surprising!). E.g., four attacks as a normal could, if desired, be resolved on 4d6 with any 4+ killing a normal target. Perhaps this -- or something like it -- is what cooper was hinting at, above?

On the other hand, multiple attacks higher up on the attack matrix are less easily compatible with Chainmail, and are extremely deadly to boot -- including against low level PCs.